Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Zealand

WP:AFD/NZ

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to New Zealand. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|New Zealand|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to New Zealand. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Oceania.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Zealand/archive

Purge page cache

watch

See also: Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board

New Zealand

Auckland in the 2009 Air New Zealand Cup

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of the notability of the subject. No indication of any interest in keeping it up to date (no updates in the last 15 years). – Pee Jay 15:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

This article consists only of a squad list

This article has not been updated since 2009

This article is completely unreferenced

This article is completely unreferenced

This article is completely unreferenced

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Rugby union and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Delete the North Otago one as that is a lower tier competition and as far as I can tell the only one of its type. Not fussed too much either way on whether the rest are kept or not, but am not sure how relevant the "not updated" argument is. The articles are about a competition that occurred 15 years ago, so there is unlikely to be any new information to add in the following years. Quality wise the Wellington one seems the most developed so maybe a weak keep that one and weak delete the others. Aircorn (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imre Vallyon

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm nominating this page for deletion again because the initial discussion lacked sufficient engagement and the sources provided were inadequate in both quality and quantity. There's a notable absence of substantial coverage of Imre Vallyon, his work, or his organisation in multiple reliable secondary sources. Meeting notability criteria typically requires presenting at least three such sources. The article from Stuff, while primarily focused on his legal issues, appears to be the only source that meets these criteria. Without it, the page is mostly information sourced by primary sources and a list of his self published books and ebooks.

In terms of Vallyon's notability as a writer, the two book reviews presented by Oaktree b in the previous discussion are clearly poor sources, as they seem to be paid content from freelance writers on unreliable websites. Additionally, Vallyon does not meet the criteria for notability as a criminal according to Wikipedia guidelines on crime perpetrators, despite the only significant coverage of him focusing on his legal issues. His organisation, FHL, does not seem to meet the notability standards either. Ynsfial (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and New Zealand. Ynsfial (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has enough to meet WP:GNG. NealeWellington (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for Ynsfial - it seems pointless making multiple attempts to have this article deleted as the previous Afd covered the arguments in sufficient depth. I suggest you look at the deletion review process if you consider there is an issue. NealeWellington (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, deletion review is the wrong avenue here. It was a no consensus close, and closed over 2 months ago. It is perfectly fine to bring it back for another look. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ta Re Moriori (app)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:N. Ref 1 and 2 are dead (WP:404) and it appears to be taken off the Play Store. Ref 3 reads like an ad ver tize muhnt. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Education, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Scoop (website) publishes press releases and has pretty much no standards. They're absolutely useless for notability and should only be used where primary sources are appropriate. The name doesn't help but there does appear to be no independent coverage. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Moriori language; the app on its own seems unlikely to become noteworthy. —Tamfang (talk) 01:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor coverage about its release but no coverage about its usage or impact. Does not meet WP:N. Adabow (talk) 05:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan O'Neill-Stevens

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is unusual to have a deputy mayor having a WP article. I don't think he meets WP:NPOL. Making comments in the media about your political stance is not WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Some coverage [1], others around being the youngest candidate and an LGBTQ individual, both of which are fine, but I don't see quite enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm somewhat surprised by this nomination. The article has six independent sources that deal with the subject at some depth. Why would that not be enough for GNG? Schwede 66 01:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this might just be WP:TOOSOON, but he doesn't meet WP:NPOL, and the coverage is just about him as a local politician. SportingFlyer T·C 12:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is some coverage cited here, but I don't think it's enough to satisfy GNG. There are thousands of people who meet the definition of being the youngest person to run for a specific office in a specific city, they aren't all going to be notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the sources meet WP:GNG from my perspective, even if they don't quite make it to WP:NPOL yet.David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 04:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is disagreement over the value of the sources in establishing notability. A review of them would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thelma Rodgers

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. 2 of the 4 sources are dead. out of the other sources, this one is just a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. No real article links to this. Being the first woman to spend time at a base is not a claim for notablity. Google news yielded nothing. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science, Antarctica, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of passing GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. This has an enormous amount of coverage: probably >10 paragraphs. Full paragraph in this article. This does pass GNG. Being the first woman to overwinter at a base when it took an effort, and there is significant coverage of the experiences is a claim for notability. That said given she only operated the equipment and wasn't a scientist with her own discoveries to cover it may be more appropriate to put in a section in Scott Base. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably have to merge, given the limited coverage, but I would argue there is notability and a reasonable claim to GNG Mrfoogles (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there is substantial coverage in the Bradshaw source, and a geographical feature Rodgers Point bears her name: Wikipedia should be able to answer the question "Who was that Rodgers?", and the current article does so nicely. PamD 09:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I've had a look what The Press has on offer and found that she was secretary of the Canterbury Caving Club soon after it was founded, and that it was not until 1988 that the second New Zealand woman spent a winter on the ice. The article in the Antarctic Magazine is very decent, but without at least a second article of substance, there isn't a good reason to keep this article. Merging seems appropriate. Schwede 66 09:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is clearly stated in lede and documented in Antarctic Magazine. There are two other sources that seem to be reliable secondary sources but they're based in New Zealand so I'm not familiar with them (Newshub and The Spinoff). Finally, Rodgers was born before 1950 and it's more difficult to find reliable secondary sources for women from this time because they were less likely to be written about. Nnev66 (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being born before 1950 is not an excuse for lack of sources. LibStar (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least three sources and I found a couple of others but all are noting the same milestone, that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica. Is the issue here that this isn't notable enough or there are not enough sources discussing this milestone in depth? There might have been more in depth sources if she had been born later, which I believe is why WikiProject Women's History makes that distinction. Nnev66 (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If she was born in 1920 I could understand. "that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica" is in itself not a claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought more about this and appreciate points on all sides. If Rodgers had wintered-over in 1989 this would not be notable. To me she's notable because she broke the glass ceiling. She pushed on in the face of obstacles and became the first woman to do this. I've tried to add more details to the article to draw this out. I wish there was more in-depth coverage but there are four sources that appear to be reliable. Note in the past couple of months I've been monitoring AfD and AfC women scientist pages and I try to improve them if I think there's notability. It's more difficult to follow the breadcrumbs for those born earlier in the 20th century - just not as much is written about them. Nnev66 (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although a weak keep. I agree that first women to winter-over doesn't seem super notable, but there is one comprehensive source with good biographical info and she is regularly mentioned in reliable secondary sources (together, meeting WP:BASIC). Plus, there's the fact of a geographical feature and one of the Scott Base labs being named after her. All up, I think there's enough. Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that there's a paragraph on her in Call of the Ice, which I've just added as a source to the article. It doesn't add very much to what's already in the article, though, apart from that she'd already been in summer '76/77 (which makes sense, presumably you'd do that before going for winter). Chocmilk03 (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge She's the first woman to winter-over specifically at Scott Base. Others came before her in Antarctica more generally; there are also many thousands of named Antarctic landforms, so I'm not convinced this is a basis for notability for a standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 13:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think she's more the first New Zealand woman to over-winter: Scott Base being the NZ Arctic base makes it almost the same thing but "first NZ woman" has a greater significance. PamD 15:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls short of GNG. Not really sure what can be merged to Scott Base in an encyclopaedic fashion. If someone can show a draft/example feel free to ping me and I'll reconsider. Also she isn't a scientist, but that isn't an issue if the article is merged/deleted. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I think a good case has already been made by others that this BLP doesn't have significant standalone notability and what is being used to assert notability is more superficial than it appears. I would be edging towards delete with that in mind, but merge seems like a really good option here in terms of WP:CONSENSUS and weighting policy/guideline since content on Rodgers is so closely tied to the location based on this article. It's a bit of case of WP:BLP1E otherwise, so the paragraph in that source would be the most I'd see moving over there (and probably less). KoA (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, seems to be a good amount of coverage for WP:GNG.David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 04:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, it appears to be keep or merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories / Templates / etc

NZ proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Pekatahi (via WP:PROD on 5 February 2024)
Raes Junction (via WP:PROD on 4 February 2024)

Rather than discussing PROD-nominees here, it is better to contribute to the talk page for the article nominated for deletion. If you agree with the proposed deletion, you don't have to do anything or you may second the nomination. If you think the article merits keeping, then remove the {{prod}} template and make an effort to improve the article so that it clearly meets the notability and verifiability criteria.

A list of prodded articles with {{WikiProject New Zealand}} tags can be seen at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Article alerts#Alerts.